1980_02 The Daily Collegian February 1980

              Page I-tht Dairy Collegian-February 4,19*0
Movie review
Actions speak louder than words for Bentpn
~^^ iUa^    Tn^    rta-     Insnna    ui^ntr    #-#-\    ttaaasat    *Un
by Karen Kopeck i
Not many directors can. capture the
mood of a film as well as Robert Benton
does in his new release 'Kramer vs.
Kramer.'
From the opening scene to the last
shot, Benton superbly uses close-up
photography to convey to his viewers the
emotions of trie film. He does,not strug¬
gle to use unnecessary dialogue but
rather focuses on facial expressins to do
much of the film's talking.
Benton opens the film with a tight
close-up of Joanna .Kramer (Meryl
Streep), a distressed housewife Who is
about to leave her husband. Joanna is
sitting in her son's (Justin Henry) dark
room, and through Benton's direction of
photography, the darkness seems.to be
closing in around her. ,She tells her
sleeping son that she loves him but that
she must leave. The audience is at once
moved by Joanna's distress.
When Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman)
comes home to find that his wife is about
to leave him, he cannot comprehend the
situation. Ted appears as an" ambitious,
self-centered husband and talks only of
what.will happen to himself when
Joanna leaves. He tries to force his wife
to stay, which makes the audicnr-v's
bond with'Joanna even stronger.
However, audience sympathy does not
stay with Joanna. It now switches to Ted,
a confused.man who has. just-lost his
wife, but who must now raise his six-
and-a-half-year;old son.,
Benton reels off 18 months of a bud¬
ding father-sorl relationship. He intro¬
duces a third character, Margaret (Jane
Alexander), a divorced neighbor whom
the audience probably most identifies
with. Margaret knows both sides of the
story. She was good friends.with Joanna
before she left, and she builds a relation¬
ships with Ted. Margaret, like the audi¬
ence, is torn between loyalties.
When Joanna returns 18 months later
to reclaim her son" the audience rejects
her. Viewers now side with Ted, who has
given wholeheartedly of himself to build
■ a relationship with his son.
A court battle is imminent While nei¬
ther Ted or Joanna wants to hurt the
other,-they both want something they
love very much-Billy. Tough attorneys
take their best cracks at them, which
only serves to confuse the audience.
Joanna's credibility is built back up. She
has "found herself," started a hew life,
and she wants to share it with her son:
Although some claim that the ending
is all too "pat," it is moving neverthe¬
less. Hoffman and Streep bring brilliant
performances .to the screen. Henry, in
his .first movie role, is an actor beyond
his years. ', '•  ■   , **''",
"Kramer vs.) Kramer" is an excellent
film, combining contemporary issues
with a believable and emotional plot. It is
playing at Manchester Cinemas.
Letters to the Editor
Jones advocates taking Soviets more seriously
Dear Editor:
The interview with Professor Allison
and myself, concerning the Soviet inva¬
sion of Afghanistan, which appeared in
the Daily Collegian on Monday, January
28, was so edited as to create a mislead¬
ing impression of my remarks. I presume
this was because of lack of space and was
not the fault of the reporter. I think,
though, T should clarify several points
touched on in the interview.
First, I believe that the American
government's two primary considera¬
tions in foreign policy should be to avoid
nuclear war with the Soviet Union and to
avoid surrendering to the Soviet Union. I
think the most effective way of accom¬
plishing these goals at present is by
bolstering our conventional land defen¬
ses and our navy, particularly in the
Middle East and in Europe. I think we
should also encourage genuinely popular
national movements of peoples trying to
fight against or break away.from the
Soviet Union's empire, and I feel we
should pursue this more actively than we
have in the past.
Civen the nature of the Soviet regime,
which is now, and always has been,
brutal, tyrannical, and contemptuous of
both democracy and civil liberties, it be¬
hooves us, as the world's primary demo¬
cracy and the only state capable of resist¬
ing the Soviet Union, to maintain a
strong military, and above all to have the
will to use it, if the Soviet Union conti¬
nues on a blatantly expansionist course.
Otherwise, I fear we'will be inviting
either nuclear war or surrender.
The Soviet Union will be experiencing
severe shortages of certain resources, in¬
cluding oil, within another decade. The
extraordinary nationality problems with¬
in the Soviet Union are likely to put
heavy pressure on the Kremlin internally
as well. Their system of centralized
economic control is a disaster at practi¬
cally everything in the civilian sector, ex¬
cept big crash projects, and they are not
much needed any more. Under these cir¬
cumstances I feel the Soviet Union may
become more dangerous and wreckless
abroad, and if not faced with a suffi¬
cient deterrent and the will to use it.
could move either across Iran or into
Yugoslavia. In either case it would be at
the invitation of disaffected groups with¬
in these countries, which would serve as
their "legitimizing* excuse.
The Soviet Union also, though, may
feel forced by internal circumstances to
liberalize its regime somewhat internal¬
ly, although it is difficult to imagine how
they can do so, considering how much
contempt and dislike for the government
and its controls exists among the Soviet
population, especially among the half of
the population that is not Russian. Those
who dream of Russia becoming a demo¬
cracy should also realize that a fully
democratic Soviet government would
lead to the abolition of the existing
Soviet power structure, the rule of the
Communist Party, and probably to the
breakup of the Soviet Union geographi¬
cally. Hence, dealing with them is, and
will remain, a dangerous business.
On specifics in the Collegian inter¬
view, I advocated that we give serious
consideration to the Pakastani govern¬
ment if it asks that we establish bases
there, especially in Baluchistan. The
Soviets are not likely to invade any ter¬
ritory that has an American base sitting
on it. If Tito's death seems imminent, as
it did last week, we should make it clear
to the Soviets that we will resist if neces¬
sary any invasion of Yugoslavia by out¬
side forces.
Since I gave the interview, Tito agreed
to have his gangrenous leg amputated,
which gives everybody more room to
maneuver. If the Yugoslav government
requests working out some defense ar¬
rangements with the United States, we
should also give that very careful and
sympathetic consideration and not brush
such suggestions aside, as it was report¬
ed in the press we did last year.
I agree with Professor Allison that the
Soviet Union was partly motivated'to in¬
vade Afghanistan because of (ear of
potential unrest among its Moslem
peoples in Central Asia. Whether that,
or the desire to position themselves for
an oil grab in Iran, was their primary
motive, I don't know. Both factors un¬
doubtedly were considered, a *d they re¬
inforced each other. Above all, they per¬
ceived that the United States would not
resist. That is what is dangerous.
I also stated that instead of allowing
our attention to be constantly diverted to
Vietnam, Angola, Cuba, or Somalia, that
we concentrate on the Soviets' back¬
yard, ykel our''biggest foreign policy
mistake^irice World War II was in not
assisting the Hungarians in 1956. That
could have meant the beginning of the
end of the Soviet Empire in Eastern
Europe. I also said that one of the most
serious problems in American political
life is the lack of a traditionalist conser¬
vative political movement along
European lines.
Without  one,   conservatism   in   the")
United States has become almost total-/'
ly identified with American  corporate/
business interests, and in foreign policy
with the interests of the oil conglome¬
rates As I told the reporter, we would be
far better served by the type of conser¬
vative nationalist represented by Charles
de Gaulle, who was flexible, intelligent,
undeceived about either Soviet motiva¬
tions or American rhetoric, and who was
also disdainful and contemptuous to¬
wards French business interests.
I think the United States badly needs a
conservative nationalist  leadership  in
foreign policy, which has the same dis¬
dain of American oil and other corporate
business interests; at least when these
do not suit the larger interests of
American foreign policy, as has been the
case in Iran.
My only significant quarrel with any¬
thing reported to have been said by Pro¬
fessor Allison was the imputed remark
that the American invasion.of the
Dominican Republic in 1965 took more
lives than the Soviet invasions of
Hungary in 1956 or of Czechoslavakia in
1968. That is probably true with regard
to Czechoslavakia, since the Czechs did
not physically resist the Soviets. It is
grossly inaccurate with regard to the
Hungarian invasion of 1956, when more
than 50,000 Hungarians may have been
killed. Needless to say, the American
troops pulled out of the Dominican
Republic within months and have en¬
couraged the people of the Dominican
Republic to determine their own desti¬
nies through free elections ever since.
The Soviets are still in Hungary and have
allowed no free elections there, or, for
that matter, in the Soviet Union.
'    David N.Jones
Associate Professor of History
Opposing military draft uncovers
selfishness of American youths
Dear Editor:
I am writing in response to Wednes¬
day's editorial. "Manditory Conscrip¬
tion Involuntary Servitude." This
editorial stated that "the draft is uncon¬
stitutional and morally wrong. This atti¬
tude, disguised in the. language of the
1060's, means only one thing, American
youth are selfish. They have been raised
in an era wnere gold chains and Trans
Ams.are what life is about. The moral
arguments of the 60's are not relevant to
this generation. Largely, they are moti¬
vated by selfishness. Their objections to
the .draft stem mainly from the possibili¬
ty that it will impede their money making
schemes.
I believe the last paragraph" summed
up much of the selfishness of today's
..youth. It stated basically; to strengthen
the Military the pay should be increased.
What ever happened to serving your
country out of patriotism? If one wants to
share in the privileges this country has to
offer, then one must also share in its de¬
fense. If one does not want to share in
its defense, then one should not share in
its wealth.
JimMalkasian